Sunday, 28 February 2010

Scott Avenue Allotment in Chorlton has fifty individual plots, including a new ‘Grow For It’ community plot. There are basic facilities on site: a portaloo, garage, and decrepit shed, which functions as the site’s only indoor social space.

Two students from the Manchester School of Architecture have helped to run two workshops with the plot-holders and steering group. Everyone was encouraged to air their views on what the new space should offer, how it could look, and who it would engage with. It was unanimously agreed that the new build would not only act as a social hub for all users of the allotment, but as a facilitator for greater engagement with the local community.

If you live nearby, why not get down and dirty on the community plot every Saturday from 11am, or Sunday from 2pm? Or, if you prefer a cleaner option, email grow_for_it@yahoogroups.co.uk or call Loucas on 07973139068 with any questions, advice, comments or funding leads.

In October, thirty Mancunians will travel to Bangladesh for a a ten day fact-finding and solidarity-building tour, that includes playing two football matches. On their return, they will become “climate warriors”, spreading word of their experiences at schools, youth centres and other venues and building longer-term links between Manchester and the communities they visited. The climate warriors will “build awareness from this experience and implement change in their own lives as well as advocate for behavioural change in the communities they live in.”

The project, organised by “Response Worldwide” and Manchester Athletic Football Club, is the brainchild of two local councillors- Rosa Battle (Bradford ward) and Luthfur Rahman (Longsight ward)

Twenty of those on the tour will be young adults who will play two football matches with young Bengalis, to “build friendships and develop long term sustainable links.” The other ten will be from “various Manchester based organisations”, almost certainly including Manchester City Council, Manchester University and the like.

Fundraising will take place through the year (a grant bid has been submitted to Department for International Development, which supports several projects in Bangladesh), but more will be raised through meals, football competitions, sponsorship from local businesses etc.)

It's not yet clear if a full carbon budget to account for the aviation emissions involved in the return flights has been developed, but 3000 trees are to be planted. MCFly will be covering the story as it develops. For further information contact cllr.l.rahman@manchester.gov.uk

Saturday, 27 February 2010

On Wednesday 24th, three council officers from Toronto delivered a presentation about how their city has been tackling climate change to a large but homogenous group of Mancunians. Held at the Civil Justice Centre, the presentation covered Toronto's long history of involvement in climate change, its current plans and future hopes. Of special note was its community engagement programme www.livegreentoronto.ca, its target to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050 from a 1990 baseline [Manchester is using an easier 2005 baseline] and the fact that it gets a 'scorecard' from environmental groups every year.

The presentation was followed by a lengthy Q and A session. Disappointingly, even when explicitly invited to reflect on the challenges and obstacles faced, the presenter chose to ignore the question, perhaps thinking that this would detract from the everything-is-sweetness-and-light image given thus far.

There was an interesting mix of council bods (including head of Capital Projects, John Lorimer) there, but the gender ratio was appalling (at least 3:1), most everyone was 40 plus and in a suit. The other political parties were conspicuous in their absence. This may be a result of how the event was advertised and who received invites- it appears that not even everyone involved in the writing of the “Manchester Climate Change Action Plan” received an invite, let alone those beyond the pale.

All in all a good event. Nice to see the Royal Bank of Scotland (owned in effect by you and me) entering into the spirit by having all its lights blazing in its empty building as we left.

Thursday, 25 February 2010

MCFly has tonight interviewed Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband, who is in Manchester to launch a “smart metering” scheme. The brief interview (full transcript below) touched on the rise in climate denialism, nuclear options, financing and “what if the Tories get in”. We hope to follow it up with a longer (and trickier for him!) interview in the coming weeks...

How do you think that, besides statements from the Secretary of State, we can counter the counter the backsliding on public acceptance of the need to aggressively tackle climate change?

I think there are two things we need to do. First of all we need to sort out any problems or mistakes that there were. So whether that's to do with the IPCC or the UEA. I think the IPCC is going to look into its procedures, [with] the UEA there's an enquiry going on. You need to clear those things up. But then at the same time you need to say to people at the same time “look, whatever errors there are in the IPCC, or whatever allegations there are about the UEA doesn't undermine the overall climate science.”

We need to say it, I think scientists need to be more active in saying it it The NGOs obviously do say it. I think business needs to say it. I actually think Richard Lambert from the CBI said it well. He said “I'm not a scientist, I don't know much about science but I know a lot about risk.” I think that's a very good way of putting it. So I think we need to get out there and say the real picture to people.”

On Nuclear “Given the experience the Finns are having with one of the new 'easy to install' nuclear power plants we've been considering, and the still unresolved question of a safe, secure and long lasting storage solution for radioactive waste, is the much lauded push on new nuclear build really an answer to climate change?....”

I don't think any one single thing is an answer, but I think it [nuclear] is part of the answer. The Finnish situation is different from ours, we're precisely going through the so-called generic design assessment so we avoid the problems the Finns have seen. I understand the concerns that people have about nuclear but I actually think if they long hard look at the overwhelming threat that climate change poses I think you come to the conclusion, -or at least I've come to the conclusion- that nuclear is part the answer. Now that doesn't mean to say we shouldn't push on renewables which is very very important, but we also need nuclear in my opinion.

[MCFly is reminded of Chris Davies, Lib Dem MEP, saying as much about nuclear at the recent NWDA shindig that we eviscerated here.]

How do we realistically finance the tough measures a city like Manchester needs to take to h it our carbon targets- do we need a reformed or reinvigorated government bond regime?

I think there are all kinds of issues we should look at. I think what is clear is that we need the right system of incentives in place and we try and do that through our various obligations. I think we need a good/better system of financing. I will have more to say next week about fiancing for home energy efficiency and the way local authorities can be involved in that- they do have a central role to play in relation to climate change. I think the financing is difficult in the coming years but - you'd expect me to say this- but I think we need to do all we can to protect the money we've [spent- inaudible?] on climate change and low carbon.

Say we wake up on May 7 or whenever the election is- with a Conservative Government. What would you hope that climate concerned people did in that situation?

Nice try, but I'm afraid I'm not going to fall for it. Look, this election is winnable for the Labour Party. I think it's very important that we have a Labour Government, including on the issue of climate change. I don't think that the Tories are fully committed to important aspects of this agenda, including on renewables. Because when you hear what they say about on-shore wind, which I think is a part of the answer, along with off-shore wind, I think it should worry us. When Kenneth Clarke, the shadow business secretary, says we shouldn't have any on-shore turbines at all, that is really worrying. And so, the problem with the Tory Party is they see green as a piece of spin. It isn't a piece of spin, it should be about substance. So I am going to do all I can to re-elect a Labour Government.

What are the ways in which women are affected differently (and more) by climate change around the world? What needs to be done about that?What are the reasons behind the persistent and sometimes huge gender imbalance in audiences at any meeting labelled "Climate Change" in Manchester? What needs to be done about that?

And in answer to the question submitted- yes, men are welcome- sorry for not making that clear.

To kick off the discussion, here's a reprint of an article written for "Only Planet", the 2008 book about Manchester and Climate Change.

Invisible Power

It's always hard to talk about the gender, race and class dynamics in activism without descending into massive generalisations. Every person has a whole range of cross-cutting identities as well as their own integral personal traits and characteristics, and there will always be individuals who buck every one of the trends I'm about to describe.

Despite this, there are some general issues with how power dynamics within groups and movements can be talked about in terms of these issues. The area I'm most familiar with from personal experience and study is gender, but many of these points are about the way that power imbalances work and discriminate more generally, so some of them will be applicable to other marginalised groups too.

Most of these 'characteristics' of men and women are largely, if not all, socially constructed. Men and women aren't 'naturally' made one way or the other, society constructs us in these ways through the millions of ways we're unconsciously taught to behave from babyhood onwards. You only have to look at the massive diversity of what is seen as 'male' or 'female' behaviour in societies around the world to realise that there's nothing intrinsic about gendered behaviour.

Some schools of eco-feminist thought would disagree with this, arguing that there are natural, intrinsic links between women, nurturing and nature; I would argue that this position, as well as countered by so many examples from around the world, opens us up to other arguments about the fundamental nature of women – that they are less intelligent, inferior and made only for 'women's' duties such as childbearing or homemaking. However, some deep ecology and eco-feminism books do have useful things to say about the way in which women are differentially impacted on by environmental change and crisis.

So, having said this, what are the kind of gender dynamics that might affect the extent to which women get involved in certain types of causes and campaigning?

Firstly, there are the power dynamics in how people behave – at meetings, in demonstrations, when planning activities and actions. It's a generalisation, but women are still often brought up to be quieter, less argumentative and less assertive than men. In meetings and discussions – especially ones which are not well facilitated and where people aren't given space and confidence to talk – this can easily translate into women not having the confidence to raise their voices in the din, to put up their hand or to challenge views they don't agree with.

Studies on workplaces have shown that men and often far more confident in their knowledge and right to express opinions and assert facts, even over and above the expertise of women who might be far better informed or qualified. This isn't just off-putting for women, but disadvantages the entire group or movement, which may well be missing out on valuable knowledge and experience just because less well-informed men have more confidence about talking publicly and asserting their own ideas. And in many cases it can be easily rectified, by making sure that facilitators in meetings and campaign planners are aware of the need to do things like use go-rounds that include everyone rather than free-for-all discussions, to ask direct questions to individuals rather than always picking the first people to raise their hands, and if necessary to use anonymising tools such as slips of paper instead of insisting that everyone has to put their point publicly.

As well as the amount that women speak and participate (or are put off doing so), these issues of confidence and assertiveness can often influence the roles and jobs that the genders take on, with men assuming that they have the right and abilities to put themselves forward for public or leadership roles, while women enter equally important but less acknowledged and respected support positions. And in movements where direct action is frequently used, it's important to be aware of how much this valuable tactic can often overlap with macho behaviour and prioritisation of physical strength which can again discriminate against some women.

Secondly, there is the issue of when and where meetings take place. Most large public meetings happen in the evenings so that working people can access them, which is fair enough – but which can discriminate against people- most often women- who have to use paid childcare in the evenings but would be able to meet while their children are at schools or nurseries. Late night meetings, especially in winter, can be threatening for women subjected to socially inculcated fear of being out on their own after dark and when there is poor public transport (even if statistics show that we're in much more danger from the men in our family than from shadowy murderers and rapists on the streets).

Using rooms in pubs can also exclude women, especially those from non-drinking cultures and religions. The tendency for the 'real' decision-making and bond-forging to go on in the pub after a meeting is also a big source of discrimination, especially against those who need to use paid childcare or have early starts for work, or who can't afford to get involved in a culture of buying rounds and hanging out regularly after meetings.

Simple ways to address some of these issues are

to ensure that meetings are run efficiently and on time, so that if people need to keep babysitting costs down they can get home quickly and predict how long might be needed.

using sub-groups to plan specific tasks can sometimes make meeting times more flexible and allow people to get together during the daytime or at weekends. Or are there venues which might even offer creche facilities?

and make sure that if important decisions and plans are made, it's done in a transparent way and in proper meetings, not over beers afterwards.

Thirdly, and depressingly enough in the 21st century, there are still some heavily gendered roles that women are expected to fall into, or which they find themselves entering by default – perhaps because they can. Cooking, cleaning up after meetings, helping other people's projects to happen rather than advancing their own. It's useful for groups to consider doing gender audits, looking at which roles and activities are being done by whom, and finding out if there are unmet ambitions and training needs amongst members. This can benefit the entire membership and help to retain members and volunteers who feel valued and respected.

Useful resources

For puncturing macho egos: any of the cartoon books of Jackie Fleming

For a detailed look at how informal power structures affect women: Beyond Hierarchy: Gender, Sexuality, and the Social Economy – Sarah Oerton (Taylor & Francis)

For discussions of how women experience environmental change:

Women and the Environment: A Reader - Sally Sontheimer (Monthly Review Press)or any of the writings of Vandana Shiva

Sunday, 14 February 2010

A small group of "concerned citizens" who live in Bury have met to see how constructive pressure can be put on Bury Council. Here's a portion of their report sent to MCFly.

"One thing we looked at was the statement from Bury Council that appeared in MCFly 36. We thought at the time this showed a very unambitious Council making a big noise about very small achievements in reducing energy use in its own buildings. An energy management consultant suggests to us that, even on its own terms, the statement was inadequate. National Indicator 186 also requires it to ‘provide vision and leadership to local communities’ so as to reduce emissions throughout the local authority area. Their statement makes no reference to that and they don’t appear to have signed up to it. We hope to encourage them to do better on that.

"We also found that their website still displays a 2003 policy on climate change with targets that don’t extend beyond 2010. When we pointed that out they agreed it needed replacing and promised their Climate Change sub-committee would be working on that over the next few months. We will be doing our best to make sure that happens – and that a more ambitious and effective policy emerges from it.

We next meet on Weds March 24 at 7.30pm at St Joseph’s Parish Centre, 132 Walmersley Road, Bury BL9 6DX. Any interested Bury residents are very welcome. For more info contact Dominic McCann (zapaman@hotmail.co.uk) or George Heron (george@heronbg.info).

On Feb 24/25, council officers from Toronto come to Manchester to share their knowledge and expertise of retrofitting buildings. The story of Toronto's engagement with a whole range of climate change issues is so compelling that Manchester City Council are inviting interested people to attend an open early evening presentation session on Weds 24th from 5.30 to 8pm at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre, 1 Bridge Street West. For a ticket, email n.jones2@manchester.gov.uk

At a packed meeting on Friday 12 February, the Greater Manchester “Integrated” Transport Authority (GMITA) agreed to look again – and more carefully- at finding ways to allow cyclists to take their bikes on trams. Further, the GMITA also agreed to ensure that the bureaucrats who serve them will in future “undertake full consultation with representatives of the Cycling Organisations and the 10 District Councils.”

In MCFly 35 (“On your bike”) we reported that despite a 2002 promise to ensure bikes could be taken on trams, the Capital Projects committee of GMITA had nixxed the idea, without even reading the relevant report on the subject, which was not released until after the vote was taken.. Campaigners swung into action, with MCFly readers and others writing to GMITA Chair, Councillor Keith Whitmore to request he look again at the issue. They were told that that couldn't happen. But things changed on Friday 12th. The morning saw an imaginative stunt by campaigners, who took ironing boards and deckchairs on board a Metrolink tram to prove their point, before attending the GMITA meeting.

Two resolutions were passed unanimously. One, from the chair of the Capital Projects committee that had made the initial decision on a 7 to 5 vote, “set up a small working group of two Conservative Members, two Liberal Democrat Members and two Labour Members which will also call on advice from Greater Manchester Cycle Campaign and the Love Your Bike campaign and the ten district councils and local transport user groups to discuss the contents of the Mott Macdonald report and examine any safe ways in which cycles can be carried on trams and [then] report back to the Policy and Resources Committee of the Authority in due course.”

The other resolution instructed bureaucrats to look at what can be learnt from European

Light Rail systems, and to estimate costings for converting existing trams and to produce “a plan for the experimental introduction of off peak bicycle carriage”

This victory for common sense, won by dedication, tactical frivolity and intelligence, has opened up space for proper discussion of the issues. Fights like this, against bureaucratic insolence and political inertia, will have to be won many times over if we are to make low-carbon choices the easiest ones for Mancunians.

At the North West Development Agency's third annual Climate Change Conference, one speaker painted a picture of the post-Copenhagen negotiators as dazed and confused soldiers, decimated by machine guns, stumbling around the battlefield rallying to this standard, and that bugle call, lost and despairing. Whisper it, but that same metaphor applied to the serried ranks of men in suits who made up the most part of the audience. The thing about the international negotiators, is at least they KNOW where they are at.

No such public insight at the North West Development Agency, which can, with a straight face, create glossy booklets and videos about a Climate Change Action Plan (“Risible to the Challenge”) that stretches two whole... years... into the future. Seriously; Two. Years. Why. Did. They. Bother?

The conference opened with ex -Peelsenior management figure Robert Hough (and current Chairman of the NWDA) making the usual noises that get made at these events; “we led Industrial Revolution, lead as low carbon leader, opportunities, commercial and economic prospects, nuclear sector, tough targets, 'the plan is working' (no evidence that MCFly heard for this assertion, btw), interruption of supply chains, clean and secure energy, lead by example”. He also gave a shout out to MCFly's favourite off-setters, “Foundation”. [Chair of the meeting Kevin Boucquet gave the latter body the backhandedest of compliments in saying that they run a 'horrendously complex carbon exchange' when mentioning they will be offsetting people's travel to and from the conference.]

His prescription was more of the same- onward to Mexico with raised ambitions for Jo'burg in 2011. He advocated addressing climate denial, (come on Weds 17th then!), keeping the Kyoto Protocol for another five years, carbon capture and storage, nuclear etc.

We then had two “practical” presentations, Matthew Wright of United Utilities talking about the challenges of providing a solid presentation on what his company can and will be doing on adaptation and mitigation, with an intriguing final thought on how decentralised water provision will be by 2050.

Richard Ellis, Group Head of CSR for Alliance Boots, conscious of the over-run on time, said he'd 'whip through' quickly, but then, erm, didn't. His explanation of why Boots did what it did (commercial imperatives, building trust with consumers etc) was robust and interesting. He at least had the guts to say that a 30% cut by 2020 was doable but that an 80% carbon dioxide reduction by 2050 was- with current intellectual tools- not.

We went to the first break 25 minutes over time, (i.e. after 90 minutes instead of the scheduled 65.) It makes you wonder- if they can't even bring their own event, with 4 speakers, in on time, what hope have they for the slightly more complex task of, erm, decarbonising the North West's economy and creating proper resilience against a backdrop of less money and more stressors.

After the break we heard from the CEO of the Energy Savings Trust. Far be it from me to tell people several pay brackets higher up the greasy pole than me how to do their jobs, but surely the behaviour change model the EST uses could be a bit more sophisticated than “it all starts with the individual”. Erm, social learning? Erm, behavioural economics? Sociology has come on a bit since Hobbes, Locke and Roussow, youkneau.

Next came the Renewables Development Manager for Centrica (think British Gas, only that's not all they do) talking about the challenges of off-shore and the need for financial incentives for companies to invest.

He looked at the recent controversies around the science (the hacked emails, the IPCC process).He related that he'd spent an evening recently with “a senior female climate expert” [BL?] swapping war stories. She said that what she hated was people telling her what Copenhagen meant. “If they think they know, they don't get it”. Crooks thinks that the Copenhagen Accord, if implemented, would be important.On finance, he had little good news. Energy bills will have to go up (more on this later). He cited the example of the Spanish cutting their solar subsidy at the end of 2009 and causing havoc in that industry

The question and answer session let in a little much-needed light and the usual heat. The first question, around fuel poverty, was only semi-answered with the EST guy pointing out that the government no longer boasts about how many people it has lifted out of fuel poverty, since so many have sunk back into it.

The next question was perhaps the most interesting. Since Crooks had said energy bills would have to rise, would utility companies accept that profits would need to go down? This actually got a bit of a clap/loud murmur of approval from the audience. Crooks and other panellists disagreed: for there to be the necessary investment in 'green energy' then energy company profits would have to increase radically. That will be an interesting sell to consumers.

There were other questions, but if you're that interested you can always watch the video. The final question was on peak oil. Ed Crooks was of the opinion that it couldn't run out fast enough, since with prices going through the roof, we would be forced to look at alternatives. Mark Atherton, standing in for Robert Hough, defended the conference/Action Plan saying it was looking at things they could control. This, I think, was missing the point somewhat! I suspect the NWDA doesn't want to plan around Peak Oil because it would be too disruptive and scare away inward investors.

The conference was ably chaired by Kevin Bocquet (whose 16 year old daughter is right- flying to France on holiday is “killing the planet”, regardless of the smug laughter from the audience).

Ultimately though, you don't go to these things for any examination of the difficulties, the failures, the contradictions. These bodies, wedded to a version of growth through ever more international trade, are not able to challenge their own pre-suppositions. Thus there was no mention of aviation and the expanding of the region's airports, nothing about the need for localised food production, nothing about peak oil, virtually nothing on behavior change, nothing on the model of growth itself. But accusing the conference of being intellectually vacuous and smug is a bit like complaining about the lack of car chases in Proust. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what's on offer. These jamborees are for patting selves on the back, creating a rhetorical defence for if/when the incoming Tory regime swings an axe (that may not happen, it seems), and swapping a few business cards. That was what was done, that is how it is.

The speaker came from the WorldWatch Institute, a Washington-based thinktank that used to give me food for thought back in the day.

And, well, you can see what's left. The speech. Not the speaker, who was an obviously intelligent, well-informed, diligent and sincere man. But my gaia, his speech was a looong hour of my life, which I will never get back.

You can understand why Richard Sharland, Head of Environmental Strategy at the City Council was there- after all, culture shift is the joint headline action for the Climate Change Action Plan.

Culture, he said, “is the sum of all social processes that make the artificial or human-constructed seem natural” (from Welsch and Vivanco). To illustrate this point he had served up roast grasshoppers at the Washington DC launch. Custom(s) prevented that here, which is a pity, because that at least would have been a new taste, a new sensation...

He then spent the next hour (I kid you not) telling us what anybody turning up to a seminar called “From Consumerism to Sustainability” almost certainly already knows, if they've seen Morgan Spurlock's Supersize Me, or read anything by Naomi Klein or... well, you get the picture.

He looked at the “six key institutions for changing cultures - education, business, government, the media, social movements and traditions.” and gave 'examples' of how work was being done in each. That's fine as far as it goes (not far) but few of the examples were new, or problematised, or inspiring. At no point did he go into detail on the obstacles, the push backs, the psychological, social and economic forces arrayed against change, that enforce homeostasis.

And the Q and A was dishwater dull. Long answers given to short questions, fundamentals ducked or at best weaved (economics, agency, urgency). But at least we got to find out what some individuals were doing. It might have been well to start with that- a quick shout out asking people to describe in one or at most two sentences what they were doing.

Since we were told that the talk is “evolving,” here's the selection pressure of robust practical constructive criticism.

find out what people already know (need only have taken a minute or two longer)

start from that, not preaching to the converted for an hour

spice up the slide show, with better pictures and better quotes

be much much more concise in content and punchier in delivery

keep it to at most a third of the time (“brief comments” doesn't mean the best part of an hour!)

find out what people are DOING. It helps them, it helps you get material/examples for the next talk, the next book

Be much briefer in answers to questions from the floor, enabling more people to make their points.

Most of all, don't treat any audience – any audience, let alone a highly intelligent and motivated one- like sheep for an hour.

It's such a pity- for once the gender mix was approaching 50/50, (as opposed to the usual 2-to-4 to one male to female ratio. There was even a decent number of People of Colour in the room, which is virtually unheard of. We were even sat at round tables, perfect for mingling. But we weren't helped/forced over the first hurdle, of classic “English” reserve.

In other news: Princes Charles was at the Museum of Science and Industry today, sharing a platform Richard Leese, who spoke of the Climate Change Action Plan/ “Manchester. A Certain Future.” According to HRH something is going to be STARTing in September.